Sri Munimasthaiah vs The State of Karnataka Education Department, The Director Government Central Press and The Accountant General in Karnataka

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The orders at Annexures-A and B dated 14.10.2011 and 30.11.2011 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (''KAT'' for short), Bangalore in Application No. 2348/2010 and Review Application NO. 20/2011 respectively are called in question in this writ petition. The case has got chequered career.

The petitioner was working as Superintendent in the Government Press; while working so, a charge memo dated 23.5.1987 was issued on the allegation of shortages in the Stores. Petitioner was kept under suspension vide order dated 17.2.1987. After holding enquiry, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner by the order dated 13.8.1991. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by its order dated 10.9.1992 and directed that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- be recovered from the petitioner and his pay be reduced to the minimum of the pay scale. The petitioner moved the Tribunal in Application No. 3748/1993 challenging the order dated 10.9.1992. The application was partly allowed quashing the recovery of the amount by the order dated 14.9.1995 with a direction to the authority to verify the stock and to re-determine the loss after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. During the interregnum, the petitioner retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.5.1993. Since no enquiry was held for about nine years, the petitioner approached KAT in Application No. 5332/2006 seeking direction to the department not to hold enquiry or effect recovery. The said application was allowed on 3.2.2009 on the ground that the recovery proceedings cannot be held at the belated stage after lapse of nine years. It is also directed by the Tribunal that the amount already recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner.

Since the period spent by the petitioner during the suspension was not regulated, the petitioner approached KAT once again in Application No. 5990/2006 seeking direction to regulate the period of suspension and dismissal and for releasing his pay and pensionary benefits. The said application came to be disposed of on 6.11.2009 with a direction to the petitioner to submit the representation seeking regulation of the said period as on duty. On representation being filed by the petitioner, the same was rejected by the department holding that the period of suspension be treated as suspension only without making any reference to the period of dismissal from service. The said order is called in question by the petitioner before the KAT in Application NO. 2348/2010 which came to be dismissed "as per Annexure-A dated 14.10.2011. Petitioner filed Review Application No. 20/2011 before the Tribunal praying for review of the order dated 14.10.2011 in Application No. 2348/2010, which also came to be dismissed.

We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. In our considered opinion, the petitioner was not exonerated as such after full-fledged enquiry. On the other hand, the Tribunal directed the Authority not to precipitate the enquiry in view of lapse of time. Therefore the petitioner''s case falls under Rules 99(4) and 99(5) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (''KCSRs'' for short). Hence the Tribunal has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. However the Tribunal is justified in directing the petitioner to make representation under the proviso to Rule 99(5) of the KCSRs to treat such period as any kind of leave admissible to him. The proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 99 makes it clear that if the Government servant desires, the employer may direct that the period of absence from duty, including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. The case of the petitioner shall be considered if the representation is made by the petitioner in the light of the proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule-99 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.